Jump to content
Pro-Alid

Ammar Nakshawani on sex slaves

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Hassan- said:

Nevertheless, it seems a bit difficult to say that it is 'marriage' which is implied by the word, 'forbidden', because of the exceptional clause coming later: except those whom your right hands possess. Sexual intercourse with one's slave women is lawful without marriage. Therefore, it would seem more appropriate if prohibition is taken to refer to sexual intercourse, and not to marriage alone, as will be explained later. The same is the implication of the words: that you seek (them) by means of your wealth ..., as will be described afterwards. Thus the fact emerges that the implied word after 'forbidden' is cohabitation, or another similar word, not marriage. Allah has avoided mentioning it explicitly, because the divine speech refrains from such words and maintains a high moral decorum.

I want to ask a question. If we earn something as legal such as money and buy food from it, could we eat it without saying bismillah. Prophet PBUHHP says one of the things that Allah dislikes is not saying his name before starting food and not saying Alhamdolilah on a boon. I think a slave girl could only become halal for master after she is in wedlock by the word of God. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

I can elaborate, but I fear people do not have the correct historical understanding regarding slavery (as Nakshwani mentions, we evaluate these things with our 21st century lens) and if they get exposed to the actual rulings in our Fiqh works, they would not be able to tolerate and handle it. People are better off reading this article by Jonathan Brown: https://yaqeeninstitute.org/en/jonathan-brown/the-problem-of-slavery/ who I believe did a pretty decent job tackling the issue.

Just as an example, besides the complementary discussions on slaves found in Kitab al-Nikah, Kitab al-Talaq, and Kitab al-'Itq, when it comes to Kitab al-Bay'/Tijarah (selling and purchasing), slaves are discussed under animal transactions (literally under بیع الحیوان) because they are considered property (just like one's land or house). Or look up the concept of Tahleel in Kitab al-Nikah, where the slave is merely used for sex by someone else that the master permits (the master recites a formula such as I make it permissible for you to have intercourse with her - احللت لک وطأها). Anyone who knows Arabic can search up these rulings in works of Fiqh themselves - they are pretty extensive and lengthy (which also makes the whole "Islam always wanted to abolish slavery'' theory a joke).

As far as the mother of Imam Mahdi being married to Imam 'Askari (I don't know how reliable this is - we barely know anything about the mother of Imam Mahdi), the only way this is possible is if she was "freed" first. Otherwise, many of the slaves of the Imams through which they had children remained slaves, but one of the categories of slaves is Umm Walad - a slave who has a child through her master (like the mother of Qasim ibn al-Hasan, who was a slave of Imam Hasan).

Wasalam

Saying that I make you this girl halal for you is allowing her permission for nikah. I do not agree with you that something saying halal would make her halal out of wedlock for it's fornication. In Quran, there is verse which you must read.  In which,  Allah says that those who are dragged to fornication by force, Allah is aware of you and He will forgive you as long as you have faith in Him. 

The above verse was revealed for a slave girl who complaint that her master forces her for fornication and prophet stopped him for doing that. Brother, I on this account disagree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, E.L King said:

I went back to the older threads and this is what I posted last time:

( مسألة 1334 ) : يحرم لمن زوج أمته وطؤها ولمسها والنظر إليها بشهوة ما دامت في حبال الزوج وكذلك إذا كانت في العدة .

Rough translation:

Issue 1334: it is forbidden upon the one who married his slave-girl [to someone else] to mount her (to have intercourse with her), to touch her, to look at her with lust as long as she remains tied to her husband, likewise if she was in idda.

Yeah but once you said that ulemas say that one could have intercourse without any Nikah with a slave girl. If I am not wrong, you said it and also said that you have reference from Ayotullah Khoi? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Abbas. said:

The relevant Quranic verses may justify the acts in the era in which they were revealed. But what about their position today? Could it be that the gradual institutional eradication of slavery, rather than outright prohibition, was the reason that certain matters such as continuing to treat other fellow humans as a 'Personal property' was temporarily allowed (but not encouraged) to a certain extent until both the freemen and the slaves entirely embraced the idea of freedom in that part of the world?   

p.s I haven't listened to Ammar's lecture. Therefore, sorry if I have misunderstood the topic.

I don't believe the Prophet (p) came with any mandate which sought the gradual abolishment of slavery. This theory is close to impossible to prove (the best one can use are the penalties that exist where one is required to free slaves, but I don't believe this is sufficient). No where in 14 centuries of Islamic discourse do you find such a theory, or ever find any scholars discussing such a notion. These are modern desperate responses to questions raised by the West - you will find these sort of desperate answers being given elsewhere too, like desperately trying to prove that 'Ayesha was older than 9, or there was absolutely no war that was initiated by the Prophet and that all of them were defensive, denying complete incidents such as the execution of the Banu Qurayzah, and many more. I believe these weak responses are not needed (in fact they are a fabrication of our history), and what is needed is proper education of how the world worked 14 centuries ago till even up until a century ago (before the phenomenon of modernity started taking over the West), and how we should not judge these people with our understanding of morality today. Another thing that is required is to understand what slavery actually was - I feel when we say slavery, for most people horrific images from the Atlantic slave trade come to mind or even the much later Arab slave trade, therefore none of these discussions are bearable for people. 

The analogy Nakshwani makes with ruling of alcohol is highly flawed, because all gradual rulings were still changed and brought to an end or initiated within the lifetime of the Prophet (s). Also there were many other customs that were widespread in the society which were brought to an immediate end and were not abolished gradually. In any case, slavery didn't get abolished in the Muslim world until very recently and it had much to do with how the dynamics of the world altered. 

Quote

Saying that I make you this girl halal for you is allowing her permission for nikah

From your replies it is blatantly obvious to me that you have not read a work in Fiqh from our Fuqaha, otherwise you would not say such silly things. The fatwa right after this discussion (from Kitab al-Nikah of Sharh al-Lum'a) makes it clear that this is not an 'aqd of Nikah, rather this is allowed because the slave is considered property, and therefore there is no dowry required for such intercourse and neither a divorce

Wasalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

I don't believe the Prophet (p) came with any mandate which sought the gradual abolishment of slavery. This theory is is close to impossible to prove. No where in 14 centuries of Islamic discourse do you find such a theory, or ever find any scholars discussing such a notion. These are modern desperate responses to questions raised by the West - you will find these sort of desperate answers being given elsewhere too, like desperately trying to prove that 'Ayesha was older than 9, or there was absolutely no war that was initiated by the Prophet and that all of them were defensive, denying complete incidents such as the execution of the Banu Qurayzah, and many more. I believe these weak responses are not needed (in fact they are a fabrication of our history), and what is needed is proper education of how the world worked 14 centuries ago and how we should not judge these people with our understanding of morality today. Another thing that is required is to understand what slavery actually was - I feel when we say slavery, for most people horrific images from the Atlantic slave trade come to mind or even the much later Arab slave trade, therefore none of these discussions are bearable for people. 

Forget about what other scholars have contributed, or have not, in the last fourteen centuries.

Here's the basic question. Did the Prophet of Islam accept slavery as a right of an elite class of human beings or did he attempt to prohibit slavery due to the immorality that it represented?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

I don't believe the Prophet (p) came with any mandate which sought the gradual abolishment of slavery. This theory is is close to impossible to prove. No where in 14 centuries of Islamic discourse do you find such a theory, or ever find any scholars discussing such a notion. These are modern desperate responses to questions raised by the West - you will find these sort of desperate answers being given elsewhere too, like desperately trying to prove that 'Ayesha was older than 9, or there was absolutely no war that was initiated by the Prophet and that all of them were defensive, denying complete incidents such as the execution of the Banu Qurayzah, and many more. I believe these weak responses are not needed (in fact they are a fabrication of our history), and what is needed is proper education of how the world worked 14 centuries ago and how we should not judge these people with our understanding of morality today. Another thing that is required is to understand what slavery actually was - I feel when we say slavery, for most people horrific images from the Atlantic slave trade come to mind or even the much later Arab slave trade, therefore none of these discussions are bearable for people. 

The analogy Nakshwani makes with ruling of alcohol is highly flawed, because all gradual rulings were still changed and brought to an end or initiated within the lifetime of the Prophet (s). Also there were many other customs that were widespread in the society which were brought to an immediate end and were not abolished gradually. In any case, slavery didn't get abolished in the Muslim world until very recently and it had much to do with how the dynamics of the world altered. 

From your replies it is blatantly obvious to me that you have not read a work in Fiqh from our Fuqaha, otherwise you would not say such silly things. The fatwa right after this discussion (from Kitab al-Nikah of Sharh al-Lum'a) makes it clear that this is not an 'aqd of Nikah, rather this is allowed because the slave is considered property, and therefore there is no dowry required for such intercourse and neither a divorce

Wasalam

Since you are in opposition to Prophet that's why you doubt his wisdom to make differing rules for him such as getting married to Ayesha before puberty and allowing his daughter to marry after puberty. But since there was no such allegation upon prophet in his life by his enemies, you must consider it a lie.  

As for mandate. The prophet pbuhhp has clear mandate to put off shackles of ignorance from world that's why even in slavery, there were many opportunities for freeing slaves and no other system was that humble. 

If you ask why was slavery and usury halal to be taken from unbelievers is because they were keeping such system intact and it's in nature that to every action there is an opposite and equal reaction and Islam held it until it's enemies abolish such system against them. Now, world abolished slavery, Islam also abolished. 

Slavery was Stone that infidels and non-Muslims throwed at us and we throwed at them. 

Edited by Sindbad05

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

Yeah but once you said that ulemas say that one could have intercourse without any Nikah with a slave girl. If I am not wrong, you said it and also said that you have reference from Ayotullah Khoi? 

Yes, this is a known ruling. In fact, he can also lend her to someone else for intercourse like brother @ibn al-hussain says, this is called "tahleel". 

You can read more here: http://www.al-khoei.us/books/?id=6767

If you know Arabic brother, there are some Fiqh books you can read regarding this topic. I recommended "Al-Lum'a" by Al-Shahid Al-Thani.

NOTE: I would personally like to refrain from this discussion personally because I believe it may be distressing to some users as this is a senstive topic, brother please discuss with brother @Ibn al-Hussain for further notice and discussion, as he is an extremely knowledgable brother, especially in Fiqh, and a talib ilm. Also brother @Qa'im.

Edited by E.L King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, E.L King said:

Yes, this is a known ruling. In fact, he can also lend her to someone else for intercourse like brother @ibn al-hussain says, this is called "tahleel". 

You can read more here: http://www.al-khoei.us/books/?id=6767

If you know Arabic brother, there are some Fiqh books you can read regarding this topic. I recommended "Al-Lum'a" by Al-Shahid Al-Thani.

Brother,  lending is not allowed making her halal is allowed and everything which you obtain legally is not halal until you say word of Allah upon it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

I don't believe the Prophet (p) came with any mandate which sought the gradual abolishment of slavery. This theory is close to impossible to prove (the best one can use are the penalties that exist where one is required to free slaves, but I don't believe this is sufficient). 

1) One of the eight instances in which zakat can be expended in Islam is purchasing slaves and setting them free. In this manner, a perpetual and continuous budget from the Public Treasury has been allocated for this purpose and which shall continue until complete freedom of all slaves is achieved.

2) In pursuance of the objective, provisions exist in Islam which permit the slaves to enter into an agreement with their masters and purchase their freedom by paying them from the wages which they earn (in Islamic jurisprudence, an entire chapter titled Mukatabah, has been devoted to this issue).

3) In Islam, expiation of many of the sins has been stipulated by freeing slaves (expiation for unintentional murder, intentional abandonment of fasts, and for (breaking an) oath are some examples of this).

4) Some exceptionally harsh punishments have been singled out (by Islam) whereby if a master were to subject his slave to any of these (damage to eyes & ears), the slave would automatically become free.

 180 Questions - Enquiries about Islam - Volume One: The Practical Laws by Ayatullah Makram Shirazi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

I want to ask a question. If we earn something as legal such as money and buy food from it, could we eat it without saying bismillah. Prophet PBUHHP says one of the things that Allah dislikes is not saying his name before starting food and not saying Alhamdolilah on a boon. I think a slave girl could only become halal for master after she is in wedlock by the word of God. 

Saying bismillah before eating is not wajib.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, E.L King said:

Yes, this is a known ruling. In fact, he can also lend her to someone else for intercourse like brother @ibn al-hussain says, this is called "tahleel". 

You can read more here: http://www.al-khoei.us/books/?id=6767

If you know Arabic brother, there are some Fiqh books you can read regarding this topic. I recommended "Al-Lum'a" by Al-Shahid Al-Thani.

NOTE: I would personally like to refrain from this discussion personally because I believe it may be distressing to some users as this is a senstive topic, brother please discuss with brother @Ibn al-Hussain for further notice and discussion, as he is an extremely knowledgable brother, especially in Fiqh, and a talib ilm. Also brother @Qa'im.

First of all, it's not in English.  Since there are many interpretations given to word halal which is most of the time wrongly interprrted because Quran says to establish evidence for every act and do it as by law of God. And what anybody would translate here would be dubious to me for I don't know who is sadiq and who is kaazab here.

Distressing is out of Islam. And, I am sure that whatever distressing anyone of us hear is lie. I do not want to discuss with both of brothers for I am sure of my belief now and seen brother ibn al-Hussain and have knowledge about Qa'im so thanks for suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Hassan- said:

Saying bismillah before eating is not wajib.

Saying bismillah is not wajib but having in heart is wajib right?  Or is that you can eat without permission of God. If any one believes in eating without permission of his creator then such person is disobedient one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Abbas. said:

Forget about what other scholars have contributed, or have not, in the last fourteen centuries.

Here's the basic question. Did the Prophet of Islam accept slavery as a right of an elite class of human beings or did he attempt to prohibit slavery due to the immorality that it represented?  

The fallacy in this question is that it already presumes slavery is immoral (in absolute terms apparently). I would question this presumption - what are you defining as slavery and what makes it immoral? If we press on this question too far, it will result in a philosophy of ethics discussion, and you will then face an array of opinions and schools of thought (both within Islam and outside of Islam) on what exactly makes something moral or immoral, whether it is objective or subjective etc.

2 hours ago, Abbas. said:

1) One of the eight instances in which zakat can be expended in Islam is purchasing slaves and setting them free. In this manner, a perpetual and continuous budget from the Public Treasury has been allocated for this purpose and which shall continue until complete freedom of all slaves is achieved.

2) In pursuance of the objective, provisions exist in Islam which permit the slaves to enter into an agreement with their masters and purchase their freedom by paying them from the wages which they earn (in Islamic jurisprudence, an entire chapter titled Mukatabah, has been devoted to this issue).

3) In Islam, expiation of many of the sins has been stipulated by freeing slaves (expiation for unintentional murder, intentional abandonment of fasts, and for (breaking an) oath are some examples of this).

4) Some exceptionally harsh punishments have been singled out (by Islam) whereby if a master were to subject his slave to any of these (damage to eyes & ears), the slave would automatically become free.

Ayatullah Makarem and Ayatullah Ja'far Subhani are known for writing very polemically in their works intended for laymen. Their works may be good for an Iranian audience (although I would even question that at this point in time), or a general Eastern audience, but upon scrutiny you will see that the answers are not that convincing. For example, look at Ayatullah Makarem's book where he tries to explain what Imam 'Ali meant in his sermon where he said women are deficient in intellect (he says it was only about 'Ayesha - this is wrong on so many levels). By the way, I say this with utmost respect to these scholars, but we must learn to differentiate between their verdicts as jurisconsults which laymen can or have to follow, and their opinions on matters outside of that.

Let us look at what Ayt, Makarem is doing here. He says Islam had an elaborate program for the freedom of all slaves, and he uses these 4 things (in your quote):

1) This Zakat money can only be used on Shi'i slaves and is just one of the options for using your Zakat.

2) Yes, there is indeed a whole book dedicated to this called Kitab al-Mukatabah with extensive laws, explaining how a slave can purchase their freedom in installments or through a one-time payment. But what is not being mentioned here is that first of all, this is a deal initiated by the master, and he sets the terms of payment. So if the master doesn't want to free the slave, or sets the terms so high that the slave can't afford it, then it is pretty irrelevant and useless. Furthermore, this is restricted to just Muslim slaves, and does not include non-Muslim slaves (the evidence used for this is فَكَاتِبُوهُمْ إِنْ عَلِمْتُمْ فِيهِمْ خَيْرًا from Surah Nur, verse 33).

3) If we want to talk in such vague flowery terms, then we can also make the claim that Islam's mandate is to eradicate global poverty (since one of the penalties is to feed those in poverty), eliminate immodesty and lewd acts from society (by placing deterrents such as death punishment and lashes), to make the whole world Muslim or make the Muslims financially stronger than non-Muslims (by permitting offensive Jihad where the opponents must either become Muslim and if they are Ahl al-Kitab they can choose to just pay land-tax), eradicate all people on the side of Kufr - people who are not Ahl al-Kitab - (because once their lands are taken over, they do not have an option to pay land-tax, rather they must either convert to Islam or are to be killed), and I can keep expanding this list. All these things on the surface sound good: No poverty, everyone is a Muslim, no Kufr in the world, a modest society, and of course no slavery. If you speak in colloquial terms, then you can get away by saying Islam's long term plan was to achieve all these things by considering these laws as precedents. However, when I say that the Prophet (s) did not come with any such mandate for abolishing slavery, I mean there was really no intent on it being abolished because it was not seen as something wrong or immoral to begin with. It was part and parcel of the world they lived in and that is how society functioned (literally). You should also realize, that mainstream Fiqh has not 'abolished' slavery (find me a verdict by mainstream scholars that says slavery is impermissible if it was done under similar circumstances as in the past). What has happened rather, is that the subject-matter of it no longer exists, therefore the laws are merely suspended and irrelevant.

At one point, people say that the gradual abolishment of slavery was required because it would not only disrupt society, but would also make life hard for the slave themselves. I don't necessarily disagree with the fact that abolishing slavery would have had these consequences, but how can one say that these penalties in place for freeing slaves were part of some mandate in achieving the eventual freedom of all slaves? If had to pay a penalty for breaking a fast during the time of the Prophet, or soon after him, where I now had to free a slave, what good did it do for the slave if he was now a 'free man', but is left stranded with no home, money or work?

4) This doesn't really prove that there was some master-plan by Islam (that pretty much everyone missed out on for 14 centuries) to abolish slavery. There are other things within Islamic law where if you do something, there are immediate/automatic consequences of it, but we don't need to make such far-fetched conclusions from them (like certain types of divorces).

You will also notice that many of these things were optional (for example, freeing a slave as a penalty was just one of the three options people had, or giving Zakat to free a slave was just one out of 8 options). I don't see how optional laws like these can be deemed part of an elaborate plan in eliminating slavery (we also know that slavery in the Muslim world only ever grew - into the millions - and it never decreased or diminished until it was 'immediately abolished' in the mid-20th century). The biggest evidence is that slavery in the Muslim world existed until the mid-20th century, and it was never abolished in the Muslim world due to some jurist citing an Islamic Fiqhi principle. Rather it was eventually outlawed by the different states under Western pressure. How on earth can we come and say Islam already had this on its to-do list, when it took the Muslim 14 centuries and pressure from the modern West to eventually pass (secular) laws banning it?

Wasalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jebreil said:

موفق باشی برادر عزیز

و علیکم السلام

Thank You.

I would also advise the readers to not be judgmental towards me or the Muslims jurists of the past after reading my posts (although it will probably be difficult for some as this is a sensitive issue). Many of these laws need to be understood in a context that is completely alien to us in the 21st century. I have also not expressed my personal opinion on what I think of slavery, rather I am simply pointing out the flaws in the arguments and justifications put forth by Muslim scholars or speakers on the topic of slavery - which I believe are weak and do not make the case for their claims.

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hassan- said:

Saying bismillah before eating is not wajib.

Second reason of for which saying bismillah is not wajib is that even if you say it in heart Allah AWJ hears it and knows it and this contract that you are eating from Allah's boons by the condition of saying his name is known to him. But for any other contract which you do, a declaration is necessary to inform other people. This is the law by which people are governed by Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

Ayatullah Makarem and Ayatullah Ja'far Subhani are known for writing very polemically in their works intended for laymen. Their works may be good for an Iranian audience (although I would even question that at this point in time), or a general Eastern audience, but upon scrutiny you will see that the answers are not that convincing. For example, look at Ayatullah Makarem's book where he tries to explain what Imam 'Ali meant in his sermon where he said women are deficient in intellect (he says it was only about 'Ayesha - this is wrong on so many levels). By the way, I say this with utmost respect to these scholars, but I differentiate between their verdicts as jurisconsults which laymen can or have to follow, and their opinions on matters outside of that.

Let us look at what Ayt, Makarem is doing here. He says Islam had an elaborate program for the freedom of all slaves, and he uses these 4 things (in your quote):

1) This Zakat money can only be used on Shi'i slaves and is just one of the options for using your Zakat.

2) Yes, there is indeed a whole book dedicated to this called Kitab al-Mukatabah with extensive laws, explaining how a slave can purchase their freedom in installments or through a one-time payment. But what is not being mentioned here is that first of all, this is a deal initiated by the master, and he sets the terms of payment. So if the master doesn't want to free the slave, or sets the terms so high that the slave can't afford it, then it is pretty irrelevant and useless. Furthermore, this is restricted to just Muslim slaves, and does not include non-Muslim slaves (the evidence used for this is فَكَاتِبُوهُمْ إِنْ عَلِمْتُمْ فِيهِمْ خَيْرًا from Surah Nur, verse 33).

3) If we want to talk in such vague flowery terms, then we can also make the claim that Islam's mandate is to eradicate global poverty (since one of the penalties is to feed those in poverty), eliminate immodesty and lewd acts from society (by placing deterrents such as death punishment and lashes), to make the whole world Muslim or make the Muslims financially stronger than non-Muslims (by permitting offensive Jihad where the opponents must either become Muslim and if they are Ahl al-Kitab they can choose to just pay land-tax), eradicate all people on the side of Kufr - people who are not Ahl al-Kitab - (because once their lands are taken over, they do not have an option to pay land-tax, rather they must either convert to Islam or are to be killed), and I can keep expanding this list. All these things on the surface sound good: No poverty, everyone is a Muslim, no Kufr in the world, a modest society, and of course no slavery. If you speak in colloquial terms, then you can get away by saying Islam's long term plan was to achieve all these things by considering these laws as precedents. However, when I say that the Prophet (s) did not come with any such mandate for abolishing slavery, I mean there was really no intent on it being abolished because it was not seen as something wrong or immoral to begin with. It was part and parcel of the world they lived in and that is how society functioned (literally). You should also realize, that mainstream Fiqh has not 'abolished' slavery (find me a verdict by mainstream scholars that says slavery is impermissible if it was done under similar circumstances as in the past). What has happened rather, is that the subject-matter of it no longer exists, therefore the laws are merely suspended and irrelevant.

At one point, people say that the gradual abolishment of slavery was required because it would not only disrupt society, but would also make life hard for the slave themselves. I don't necessarily disagree with the fact that abolishing slavery would have had these consequences, but how can one say that these penalties in place for freeing slaves were part of some mandate in achieving the eventual freedom of all slaves? If had to pay a penalty for breaking a fast during the time of the Prophet, or soon after him, where I now had to free a slave, what good did it do for the slave if he was now a 'free man', but is left stranded with no home, money or work?

4) This doesn't really prove that there was some master-plan by Islam (that pretty much everyone missed out on for 14 centuries) to abolish slavery. There are other things within Islamic law where if you do something, there are immediate/automatic consequences of it, but we don't need to make such far-fetched conclusions from them (like certain types of divorces).

You will also notice that many of these things were optional (for example, freeing a slave as a penalty was just one of the three options people had, or giving Zakat to free a slave was just one out of 8 options). I don't see how optional laws like these can be deemed part of an elaborate plan in eliminating slavery (we also know that slavery in the Muslim world only ever grew - into the millions - and it never decreased or diminished until it was 'immediately abolished' in the mid-20th century). The biggest evidence is that slavery in the Muslim world existed until the mid-20th century, and it was never abolished in the Muslim world due to some jurist citing an Islamic Fiqhi principle. Rather it was eventually outlawed by the different states under Western pressure. How on earth can we come and say Islam already had this on its to-do list, when it took the Muslim 14 centuries and pressure from the modern West to eventually pass (secular) laws banning it?

Wasalam

What Imam Ali a.s said is true in regards to rulership. Please note that women are more emotional and emotion affects judgement. A student of science knows that excess of something would diminish some other thing for example if a person gets angry often his patience is less and vice versa. 

The point to which you have referred as to why aren't non-Muslims allowed such right of freedom to earn. I would mention that because this may become a source of espionage for the enemy from whom captives were held as slaves as this would allow him to roam freely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"In Shiite jurisprudence it is unlawful for a master of a female slave to grant a third party the use of her for sexual relations. The Shiite scholar Shaykh al-Tusi stated:ولا يجوز إعارتها للاستمتاع بها لأن البضع لا يستباح بالإعارة "It is not permissible to loan (the slave girl) for enjoyment purpose, because sexual intercourse cannot be legitimate through loaning"[65] and the Shiite scholars al-Muhaqiq al-Kurki, Allamah al-Hilli and Ali Asghar Merwarid made the following ruling: ولا تجوز استعارة الجواري للاستمتاع "It is not permissible to loan the slave girl for the purpose of sexual intercourse"[66]

  1.  Shaykh al-Tusi stated in Al-Mabsut, Volume 3 page 57
  2. Jump up^ al-Muhaqiq al-Kurki in Jame'a al-Maqasid, Volume 6 page 62, Allamah al-Hilli in Al-Tadkira, Volume 2 page 210 and Ali Asghar Merwarid in Al-Yanabi al-Fiqhya, Volume 17 page 187

Source: Wikipedia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/02/pope-francis-and-other-re_n_6256640.html

 

Pope Francis And Other Religious Leaders Sign Declaration Against Modern Slavery

 

 

ere is the text of the Declaration, followed by a list of signatories:

We, the undersigned, are gathered here today for a historic initiative to inspire spiritual and practical action by all global faiths and people of good will everywhere to eradicate modern slavery across the world by 2020 and for all time.I n the eyes of God*, each human being is a free person, whether girl, boy, woman or man, and is destined to exist for the good of all in equality and fraternity. Modern slavery, in terms of human trafficking, forced labour and prostitution, organ trafficking, and any relationship that fails to respect the fundamental conviction that all people are equal and have the same freedom and dignity, is a crime against humanity. We pledge ourselves here today to do all in our power, within our faith communities and beyond, to work together for the freedom of all those who are enslaved and trafficked so that their future may be restored. Today we have the opportunity, awareness, wisdom, innovation and technology to achieve this human and moral imperative.

*The Grand Imam of Al Azhar uses the word “religions”.

Pope Francis

Her Holiness Mata Amritanandamayi (Amma)

Venerable Bhikkhuni Thich Nu Chan Khong (representing Zen Master Thích Nhất Hạnh)

The Most Ven. Datuk K Sri Dhammaratana, Chief High Priest of Malaysia

Rabbi Dr. Abraham Skorka

Rabbi Dr. David Rosen

Dr. Abbas Abdalla Abbas Soliman, Undersecretary of State of Al Azhar Alsharif (representing Mohamed Ahmed El-Tayeb, Grand Imam of Al-Azhar)

Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi al-Modarresi

Sheikh Naziyah Razzaq Jaafar, Special advisor of Grand Ayatollah (representing Grand Ayatollah Sheikh Basheer Hussain al Najafi

Sheikh Omar Abboud

Most Revd and Right Hon Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury

His Eminence Metropolitan Emmanuel of France (representing His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayatollah al-Sistani prohibits the enslavement and rape of women during a military campaign, and forbids sex with non-Muslim concubines:

Fatwa, posted 4.22.2010, from Iraq, in: 
Religious Authority: 
 Ali al-Sistanti
Website URL: 
 http://www.sistani.org/
Fatwa Question or Essay Title: 
 Ayatollah al-Sistani prohibits the enslavement and rape of women during a military campaign, and forbids sex with non-Muslim concubines:

Is it permissible to enslave women belonging to infidels who make war [against us] without the permission of the legitimate ruler? Is it permissible to have sex with them before they surrender? And if someone bought or came to own a non-Muslim concubine, may he have sex with her?

Answer: No, it is not allowed.

 

http://www.islamopediaonline.org/fatwa/ayatollah-al-sistani-prohibits-enslavement-and-rape-women-during-military-campaign-and-forbids

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, salman1 said:

"In Shiite jurisprudence it is unlawful for a master of a female slave to grant a third party the use of her for sexual relations. The Shiite scholar Shaykh al-Tusi stated:ولا يجوز إعارتها للاستمتاع بها لأن البضع لا يستباح بالإعارة "It is not permissible to loan (the slave girl) for enjoyment purpose, because sexual intercourse cannot be legitimate through loaning"

They should have read the rest of the statement of Shaykh al-Tusi:

 و لا يجوز إعارتها للاستمتاع بها لأن البضع لا يستباح بالإعارة، و حكي عن مالك جواز ذلك، و عندنا يجوز ذلك بلفظ الإباحة، و لا يجوز بلفظ العارية

The ruling is just pointing out a technicality, saying you can't make her halal for sexual relations with a third-party by using the Arabic term for 'loaning'. However, you can make her halal for sexual relations by using the verb that relays Ibaha (similar to Tahleel as I mentioned earlier) - because you can't loan out sexual intercourse, but you can still make it permissible for a third-party through other means. It is like saying, you cannot get married permanently to a man by using the term Mat'atoka (though there is a difference of opinion on this), but you can if you use the word Zawwajtoka (because the first formula implies temporary marriage, while the second implies permanent).

Wasalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

They should have read the rest of the statement of Shaykh al-Tusi:

 و لا يجوز إعارتها للاستمتاع بها لأن البضع لا يستباح بالإعارة، و حكي عن مالك جواز ذلك، و عندنا يجوز ذلك بلفظ الإباحة، و لا يجوز بلفظ العارية

The ruling is just pointing out a technicality, saying you can't make her halal for sexual relations with a third-party by using the Arabic term for 'loaning'. However, you can make her halal for sexual relations by using the verb that relays Ibaha (similar to Tahleel as I mentioned earlier) - because you can't loan out sexual intercourse, but you can still make it permissible for a third-party through other means. It is like saying, you cannot get married permanently to a man by using the term Mat'atoka (though there is a difference of opinion on this), but you can if you use the word Zawwajtoka (because the first formula implies temporary marriage, while the second implies permanent).

Wasalam

Brother, this arabic is understood by you only while Quran has already said very clearly that by any means other than marriage giving a slave girl to other person is fornication and you can search for verse that tells such thing. Even the word here "Zawajah" means taking by Nikah. 

But what can we do if people who can twist words and do not delve into it's full meaning  as what rights arises by "terms" such as "Zawajah" is after "nikah" and "Thief" is applied after "proof"otherwise a person is "suspect". 

I was also confused until I read verse about fornication and until importance of terms was unclear to me but alhamdulillah this post came.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, salman1 said:

"In Shiite jurisprudence it is unlawful for a master of a female slave to grant a third party the use of her for sexual relations. The Shiite scholar Shaykh al-Tusi stated:ولا يجوز إعارتها للاستمتاع بها لأن البضع لا يستباح بالإعارة "It is not permissible to loan (the slave girl) for enjoyment purpose, because sexual intercourse cannot be legitimate through loaning"[65] and the Shiite scholars al-Muhaqiq al-Kurki, Allamah al-Hilli and Ali Asghar Merwarid made the following ruling: ولا تجوز استعارة الجواري للاستمتاع "It is not permissible to loan the slave girl for the purpose of sexual intercourse"[66]

  1.  Shaykh al-Tusi stated in Al-Mabsut, Volume 3 page 57
  2. Jump up^ al-Muhaqiq al-Kurki in Jame'a al-Maqasid, Volume 6 page 62, Allamah al-Hilli in Al-Tadkira, Volume 2 page 210 and Ali Asghar Merwarid in Al-Yanabi al-Fiqhya, Volume 17 page 187

Source: Wikipedia

Exactly, I myself and don't know how many people were confused about this question. @Ibn al-Hussain has probably read wahabbi propaganda that has provided wrong translation of a chapter from al_kafi which says that a person cannot take a slave girl for any relationship that is practiced between wife and husband until she is declared halal by her master to that person and this term is not like "wahabbis" who connotes having intercourse without wedlock because I have read in hadith that whoever slave girls our Imam married first they taught her islam then married her. So, this is "halal" way. Brother, @Ibn al-Hussain you are wrong that those laws are inappropriate for this era. You should say that these laws are translated as inappropriate to make people afraid of islam. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Yes they are considered Muslims but not Mo'mins. Surah Al-Insan, Verse 8:
      وَيُطْعِمُونَ الطَّعَامَ عَلَىٰ حُبِّهِ مِسْكِينًا وَيَتِيمًا وَأَسِيرًا And they give food out of love for Him to the poor and the orphan and the captive:
      (English - Shakir) Surah Al-Insan, Verse 9:
      إِنَّمَا نُطْعِمُكُمْ لِوَجْهِ اللَّهِ لَا نُرِيدُ مِنكُمْ جَزَاءً وَلَا شُكُورًا We only feed you for Allah's sake; we desire from you neither reward nor thanks:
      (English - Shakir) A true mo'min always act to seek the nearness (qurbat) of Allah because he loves Allah (s.w.t).  In the same chapter, you will find a verse mentioning people who love this worldly life: Surah Al-Insan, Verse 27:
      إِنَّ هَٰؤُلَاءِ يُحِبُّونَ الْعَاجِلَةَ وَيَذَرُونَ وَرَاءَهُمْ يَوْمًا ثَقِيلًا Surely these love the transitory and neglect a grievous day before them.
      (English - Shakir) @hasanhh, @Chaotic Muslem
    • frankly, i think it's the (takfiri) wahhabis that's causing havoc in muslim lands. let's not quarrel among ourselves. [8:46].....do not quarrel for then you will be weak in hearts and your power will depart,..... let's not misled others [16:25] Let them bear, on the Day of Judgment, their own burdens in full, and also (something) of the burdens of those without knowledge, whom they misled. Alas, how grievous the burdens they will bear! don't have to unite. but let's strive as in a race with one another, towards good deeds [5:48]....therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed;  
    • A Christian Nation? Ryan LaMothe Photo by Forsaken Fotos | CC BY 2.0 Over the years I have often heard Christians of various political stripes assert that the United States is a Christian nation. More recently, Christian evangelicals, who supported Trump and his campaign slogan of “Make America Great Again,” seemed nostalgic for a white Christian America. One might be tempted to call the belief that the U.S. is a Christian nation a myth, the seeds of which were sown in 1630 when John Winthrop challenged his community to establish a city on the hill, reflecting the covenant of God and Christian charity. Many myths contain a grain or two of truth. Nevertheless, the belief in a Christian nation is more illusion than truth. This might be a provocative claim to many people that requires justification. Let me begin by acknowledging that most of the people who immigrated to America, taking native peoples’ lands, were primarily of various Christian denominations. Some saw this country as the new Promised Land, overlooking the fact that by occupying the land they removed any possibility of promise to the non-Christian people who lived here for millennia. So, I am willing to concede that white European settlers were mainly Christian. This was also true after the War of Independence and in this sense one might say this was a Christian nation in that most of the settlers called themselves Christian. I will come back to this, but for now let me say that this new “Christian nation” was clearly neither a Christian theocracy not a parliamentary system advocating a particular religion. Indeed, the Constitution enshrined the free exercise of religion, while establishing a wall between church and state. If we were to call this budding nation a Christian nation, it was oddly one that proclaimed the freedom of individuals to practice other religions—at least ideally—or no religion at all. Proclaiming the inalienable right of religious freedom would leave open the possibility that another religion might be dominant, which would mean we would no longer be a “Christian nation.” While some people cite numbers or percentage of Christians as a reason for calling the U.S. a Christian nation, others have argued that the U.S. is a Christian nation because it was founded by Christians and, therefore, some of their beliefs and principles were woven into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  In reality, the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights influenced those who penned the Constitution. Also, House Congressional Resolution 331 (1988) acknowledged the influence of the Iroquois Confederacy of Nations in writing the U.S. Constitution.  To be sure there are references to God in the Declaration of Independence, but not in the Constitution, which is not to deny that Christian principles, to some degree, shaped the writing of the Constitution, though it is not entirely clear which principles. More apparent is the secular political influences that shaped founding texts. Indeed, it is more accurate to say the U.S. was founded on English and Enlightenment political values. This will not deter those who will insist that since most colonial and later U.S. citizens nation were Christian, then the U.S. was, by and large, a Christian nation. Fast forward to the present and polls indicate that approximately 84% of people in the U.S. identify as Christians. So, our stalwart believer may proclaim that we are still a Christian nation by percentages alone.  Of course, we might look more closely at those numbers to discover that many of those who self-identify as Christians do not actually belong to a Christian community of faith. In some polling less than 38% of Christians actually go to church. What percentage do we rely on for being a Christian nation—51% or above of those who believe in Christ? Or do we count those who are actually practicing their Christian faith? If it is the latter, then we do not qualify as a Christian nation. Percentages and numbers, though, are hardly adequate measures for determining whether we are a Christian nation or not. It would seem fairer to consider not so much belief, but whether the majority of citizens and their elected representatives embody and live out core principles associated with Christianity. This would be akin to considering whether the claim that we are a democratic nation is valid based on whether citizens and institutions uphold and live out the principles and practices of democracy. Do citizens act in democratic ways? Are there state and non-state institutions that uphold democratic values and principles? Let’s shift to whether we are a “Christian” nation. Do citizens and elected officials adhere to the core principles of Christianity as reflected in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ? Do state and non-state institutions promote Christian principles and practices? The simple answer is no, but it is important to at least identify a few key principles of Christianity. It is apparent in any cursory reading of history that there are various renderings of what it means to live a Christian life. Yet, it is safe to say that the ministry of Jesus Christ incarnates the love and compassion of God, which includes mercy and forgiveness. As Karen Armstrong (1993) notes, the three Abrahamic faiths elevate compassion as a central principle for living a religious life. If we consider love, compassion, mercy, and forgiveness as central principles of being a Christian, then it is evident that these principles are less about mere belief than they are about actions or practices. I think most individual Christians and communities of faith, if they are honest, would say that they fall short of living out these principles. Indeed, Kierkegaard, surveying the landscape of Christian Europe, asked whether a Christian could be found in all of Christendom. No doubt he was aware of how far he and others fail to live out and up to Jesus Christ. More importantly, his query was not just about individuals, but calling Christendom itself into question. Individuals who call themselves Christian should be assessed in terms of the principles of Christianity, not so much to deny their identity, but to indicate to what degree they live out this faith. Those of us who call ourselves Christian know we do not measure up, yet we retain a Christian identity. When individuals use the term Christian to describe their nation, which includes identity, then it is fair game to use the principles as criteria. What does it mean to be called a Christian nation given the violent appropriation of land from Native Americans, which may rightly be called ethnic cleansing? Our ruthless treatment of Native peoples, which continues today, seems a far cry from any Christian principle. Consider how many American Christians legitimated slavery, Jim Crow, and racism. By what Christian principle do these fall under? The exploitation of Cuban, Philippine, and Central American peoples during the decades when the U.S. was a colonial power seems more in line with the principles of the Roman Empire than Christian values. The fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Has the U.S. ever asked for forgiveness for these acts?  This kind of sociopathic brutality is a far cry from Christian compassion, though it is important to acknowledge that Christian communities perpetrated if not supported brutal actions (e.g., lynching). Let’s turn to the killing of around 2 million Vietnamese, which was more in line with the principles of realpolitik than Christian justice. Speaking of justice, read Acts and ask how Christian is it to have huge income and wealth disparities, millions of people without healthcare or inadequate healthcare, food deserts, and 7 million people in the penal system. Does this so-called Christian nation embody or even uphold any of the core values of Christianity? If this is not enough to dissuade people from calling the U.S. a Christian nation, I also raise the fact that I am not sure any nation could be Christian, except in only one sense and that is the view that we are a Christian nation because most citizens self-identify as Christian. That said, it is crucial to recognize that while religious communities can hold forth about their Christian values and principles vis-à-vis organizing the life of the community, nations abide by other principles, principles more in line with Machiavelli and Clausewitz, rather than Christ. To be sure, Constantine launched the West onto the idea of a Christian state, but this idea seemed to be far from anything Jesus had in mind. Moreover, Christ’s motivation, if I can talk about his motivation, seemed to be more about compassion, feeding the poor, healing the sick, etc., than it was about founding a nation. In short, Jesus’ kingdom is not to be found on earth, even though the kingdom of God is among us in acts of love, mercy, compassion, and forgiveness. These are virtues that are inimical the advancement of a nation state, let alone, an empire. So, let’s be honest and acknowledge that the U.S. and its government do not and, perhaps, cannot uphold Christian principles in organizing social or international relations. For this reason, we cannot claim the U.S. is a Christian nation. But I am not sanguine about people accepting this, especially those Christian individuals who are more likely to think of themselves as staunch patriots. By adhering to this belief, more accurately an illusion, they avoid facing the fact that the fundamental principles that actually operate in state-craft, namely, ruthless, rational calculation in the advancement of U.S. economic and political interests, are contrary to Christian principles used to organize the first Christian communities, namely sacrificial love, compassion, forgiveness, and distribution of resources according to needs. I also think there are a few other reasons why many Christian Americans are steadfast in their belief that the U.S. is a Christian nation. First, Christianity has long been the dominant religious tradition in this country and has become, for many, intertwined with a national identity. Even if people recognize that one can be American and from other faith traditions, patriotic Christians’ identity is wedded to national identity. To begin to believe we are not a Christian nation can evoke anxiety and rage because it is a threat to that identity. A second reason for retaining this illusion is that it deflects one from the inherent cruelty of the state’s actions (e.g., drone warfare and the killing of civilians, policing the poor). Even when we find ways to justify violence (e.g., they attacked us first—just war), we can continue to hold out that we are Christian nation. “Christian” denotes something good, unsullied by our excesses. It is analogous to someone saying, after being cruel to someone, “All have sinned. I know this as a Christian and that God still loves me.” Pasting the title Christian over the notion of the state or nation is like trying to cover over the indelible stain of our national sins. Third and relatedly, to come face to face with ourselves, as Carl Jung noted, is a terrible shock for we will see how far we really are from our cherished ideals of ourselves. Our shared histories, which undergird our shared identities, are, more often than not, facades that screen the reality of wrong on the throne and right on the scaffold (Niebuhr, 1941, p. 40).  Better to hold onto the soporific illusions of the title “Christian” than to face our collective past and present sins. As James Baldwin noted Americans “have the most remarkable ability to alchemize all bitter truths into an innocuous but piquant confection and to transform their moral contradictions, into a proud decoration” (1955, p.31)—the proud decoration that we are a Christian nation. Baldwin also wrote, “(F)or there is a great deal of will power involved in the white man’s naïveté” (p.166)—a naiveté fostered by the illusion of a Christian America. So, there are three basic rationales for citizens proclaiming the U.S. is a Christian nation. The first is the view that sheer numbers of people who believe in Christ indicates we are a Christian nation, but this fails because of the low percentages of people who actually practice some version of Christian faith. More importantly it also fails because the Constitution not only does not proclaim this, but actually leaves open the possibility of some other religion having greater numbers of believers, let alone practitioners. A second argument is that the founding documents of the nation are heavily influenced by Christian beliefs and principles. This might seem to be true, but the reality is that there were other influences, including those of Native peoples. Third, individuals may claim that we are a Christian nation because Christian principles and values guide how we understand ourselves and organize society. The truth, however, is that the United States has operated out of other principles more suited to Machiavellian principles of statecraft. One might ask why is it so important to rid ourselves of the illusion that we are a Christian nation. What good will come of it? Isn’t holding this belief an inducement to live out a more moral existence as a nation? As for the second question, one need only go down the depressively long list of cruel, destructive, exploitive, and oppressive actions perpetrated in the name of a Christian nation to see that it has not been an inducement to live a more moral life, though people like Martin Luther King Jr. and others used this to [Edited Out] the consciences of white Americans. If we work to get rid of or limit this illusion, people of other religious and secular faiths may feel more at home in the U.S. Perhaps another benefit would be a growing awareness of the misdeeds done under the name of Christian nation. In facing the sins of our past, there might be a sliver of hope for change. As James Baldwin (2010) notes, “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced” (p.34). Notes. Armstrong, K. (1993). A History of God. New York: Ballantine Books. Baldwin, J. (1955). Notes of a Native Son. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Baldwin, J. (2010). The Cross of Redemption: Uncollected writings. New York: Pantheon. Kierkegaard, S. (1846). Concluding unscientific postscript to the philosophical fragments: A mimic-pathetic-dialectic composition: An existential contribution, by Johannes Climacus. Responsible for publication: S. Kierkegaard. Trans. D. Swenson and W. Lowrie (1941). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Niebuhr, H. R. (1941). Meaning and revelation. New York: Collier Books.
    • If you are thinking that he'll be hurt by your decision then you are right may be he will,but that'll heal.. Moving with him further will make chances to return and heal difficult!! And if you are thinking about people pointing on you or your parents don't worry they will talk till they have that tongue(even if you do nothing they'll say oh!what a poor girl she does nothing :p) select your priorities and then act, it will ease your decisions inshaaAllah... May you find best in Allah's will 
    • Just remembering that incident today on 28th of Safar.  The noha I was listening today mentioning that coffin taken back to home again (may be to remove those arrows) and then taken to jannat-ul-baqee.
×